Uncertainty reigns at the 11th hour

The Government started the campaign with the momentum - new female PM, moving forward from a "government that had lost its way", claiming to have dealt with the four outstanding issues that had caused the collapse of its electoral standing under her predecessor, namely, Rudd himself, the mining tax, asylum seekers and climate change.

The focus group/poll-driven strategy of the factional bosses was to go to an early poll to capitalise on her honeymoon period. Why not, it had worked before at state level? But they didn't count on the shortest honeymoon in our history. Bottom line was Julia was tossed in at the deep end, where she floundered for at least the first half of the campaign, compounded by leaks, Rudd, Latham and by the unravelling of her "policy fix", especially on asylum seekers and the citizens assembly. Even the circuit breaker, the "real Julia" strategy, frayed with time as many started to ask, "Is that all there is?"

Nevertheless, Julia did marginally better in the last couple of weeks, significantly aided by the main flaw in the Opposition's strategy, namely being spooked about going "too hard" against Julia, the failed minister, in a failed government, and personally.

By comparison, the personal attacks against Abbott and his record were both hard and relentless. Even in her last Press Club speech, where Julia claimed to want to escape all the negativity and to focus on her "plan" for the future, she then went on and bagged Abbott some 45 times, and her attacks during questions were defining.

All up, this was the most negative campaign in our history. Importantly, this negativity may have undermined the credibility of both sides in the eyes of voters, many of which were thrust into the campaign as apathetic, disinterested in, and disillusioned by, politicians and the games they play, while problems remain unsolved and service delivery erodes.

The jousting over costings and debates were tiresome and little better than a blur to the voter - they would say that wouldn't they? Both candidates avoided a major gaffe, although they did their best, on occasions.

My take on the campaign as a whole is that the day-to-day slog was pretty much a draw, but Abbott did marginally better, simply because he performed much better than expected. He was much more controlled, disciplined and focused than expected after the incidents in the 2007 campaign with Bernie Banton, WorkChoices, etc. and under the relentless personal attacks.

The likely outcome is even harder to pick. History is on the side of the Government. You have to go back the Scullin government that imploded in 1931 to find a government that hasn't won a second term. Interestingly, the implosion was due to fundamental divisions within the government over the mishandling of the Great Depression.

The choice is complicated by a host of factors, some largely unprecedented, such as the significance of state issues, and the standing of state Labor governments, which is both a positive and a negative. As a result, local candidates and campaigns will be decisive this time, but are particularly hard to call.

Moreover, there isn't a uniform, significant, national swing on, with Labor stronger in Victoria and South Australia, where they could possibly win seats, but very weak in Queensland and NSW, where they face significant losses.

The most worrying feature of the recent polling for Labor is the consistent weakness of their primary vote, less than 40 per cent. In 2007, Rudd recorded a primary vote of over 43 per cent.

But this time the Greens are polling strongly, 12+ per cent, compared to about 8 per cent in 2007, in part reflecting a protest vote against the two major parties, so the distribution of their preferences will be crucial to the outcome.

One of the great ironies of this campaign is the claim that a significant part of the support for the Greens, especially among younger voters, is due to their principled stand on climate change. Yet, they failed to support the ETS in the Senate. Why? They are more concerned about issues of income and wealth distribution, than they are "green".

One more reality check. There are 30 seats with a margin of about 2.5 per cent, roughly the swing required for the Opposition to win, 18 presently held by Labor, and 12 by the Opposition. Basically, the Opposition has to win all these Labor seats, and lose none of their own, or achieve much bigger swings in other seats. A big ask!

Moreover, there are only four Labor seats in Queensland and seven in NSW, with margins of less than the swing required - so, much bigger swings are required, but they are states where the Labor governments are on the nose, and so bigger swings are possible. To give some perspective, the media has been fascinated by the contest in the seat of Lindsay in NSW, but the ask is 6.3 per cent for an Opposition win.

All up, I can readily count 10-12 seats for the Opposition in Queensland and NSW, which obviously falls well short of the 17 needed to govern in their own right, although two of the three independents could probably be counted on to vote with them, most of the time.

It also requires them not to lose seats in Victoria and SA, where the Government is hoping on at least two in Victoria and maybe one in SA, but the Government could lose one or two in WA, Tasmania being status quo.

However, it won't take many of what are probably near-record undecided voters on the day, in a couple of the remaining, key marginals, to tip the outcome to a slight Opposition win, or a hung Parliament.

Neither Gillard nor Abbott will rest easy tonight!

Dr. John Hewson was the federal leader of the Liberal Party of Australia from 1990 to 1994.

You have no doubt been hearing a lot about the Paris Agreement and know that it pertains to climate change, but are too embarrassed at this stage to ask for an overall explanation of what it's all about.